Opinion
D058402
02-03-2012
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMAR EDWARD WILSON, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Super. Ct. No. SCD222818)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Louis R. Hanoian, Judge. Affirmed.
Jamar Edward Wilson pled guilty to two counts of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)) along with a gang enhancement (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).) He was sentenced to six years on each manslaughter count and 10 years on the gang enhancement, to be served consecutively, for a total term of 22 years.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Wilson now appeals his sentence, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a full-term consecutive sentence without finding the increase justified by an aggravating circumstance.
FACTS
On June 21, 2002, Wilson participated in the shooting deaths of Steven "Bank Booty" Bankhead and Clifford "Bliffie" Lambert. All three were members of the 5/9 Brims street gang. Wilson and Bankhead had been feuding since Bankhead had sold Wilson a stolen cellular telephone days before; when the phone's service was shut off, Wilson demanded a refund, which Bankhead refused. The vendetta quickly escalated, with both Wilson and Bankhead physically fighting and threatening each other in the ensuing days, and culminated when Bankhead and Lambert arrived at an apartment complex to confront Wilson. The pair was shot multiple times at close range.
Wilson was initially charged with first degree murder and various firearm and gang enhancements. He accepted a plea deal for two counts of manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)) and criminal conduct by a gang member (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).
Under the terms of the plea deal, Wilson faced a sentence between 17 and 32 years. The prosecution asked for a term of 11 years on one manslaughter count plus six on the other and 10 for the gang enhancement, for a total sentence of 27 years. Wilson asked for six years on each manslaughter count, plus 10 for the gang enhancement, for a total sentence of 22 years. After an extended discussion on the record of both aggravating and mitigating factors, the trial court granted Wilson's requested sentence of 22 years.
Wilson now appeals, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by relying on improper factors in determining his sentence. Specifically, Wilson claims the trial court used the "value of life" to improperly sentence him to consecutive six-year terms for manslaughter, rather than one six-year term and a consecutive two-year term. We find Wilson's claims to be without merit and affirm the judgment.
DISCUSSION
We review the trial court's sentencing decision on an abuse of discretion standard. (People v. King (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1281, 1323.) The party attacking the sentence must show the sentencing decision was irrational or arbitrary. (People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 977-978.)
Here, the sentencing decision was neither irrational nor arbitrary. The court was statutorily permitted to sentence Wilson to consecutive six-year terms by section 1170.16. The trial court expressly recognized that ability, and on the record clearly weighed and delineated the reasons behind Wilson's sentence. (See People v. Quintanilla (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 406.) We note, as did the trial court, that Wilson did not receive an aggravated term sentence, but received a middle-term sentence for the death of each victim. The trial court reached this decision after discussing both aggravating and mitigating factors. Contrary to Wilson's claim, the "value of life" was not raised as an aggravating factor.
DISPOSITION
The sentence and judgment are affirmed.
BENKE, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR:
McINTYRE, J.
IRION, J.